Posted
by
kdawsonon Friday October 22, 2010 @06:03PM
from the binding-with-briars dept.

theodp writes "With its forthcoming Lion Mac OS and new Apple-curated Mac Apps Store, Apple will be locking down top tier applications on the Mac similar to the way apps are locked down on the iPad and iPhone. Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features. The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application; the second is the ability to update apps to new versions with one click. It will be a lot easier to use apps bought from the Mac App Store than ones downloaded in the wild. It didn't have to be that way, says Valleywag's Ryan Tate: 'Apple could have enabled its Launchpad and auto-update features for all applications, sold through the Apple Store or not. For example, an open system for updating applications has been in use for years on Ubuntu... Ubuntu's 'Apt' (Advanced Packaging Tool) lets users install, update, and remove software of their choosing with a single command. There's a central list of apps curated by Ubuntu's maintainers, but users are free to add and install from other lists... But Apple seems to have made a very clear choice not to take the open route.' Longtime Apple developer Dave Winer was also concerned, tweeting during Apple's presentation 'Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?' The news also prompted developer Anil Dash to call for an open alternative to the Mac App Store."

Can we seriously cool it with the 'OMG Lockdown!' claims? Yes, Apple introduced an app store for macs this week, but at the moment there are plenty of other ways to get applications, and use of said app store is certainly not required. When the lockdown is actually in place, then we can complain and move on from OS X to [insert your favorite Linux flavor here]. Let's stop rolling down this slippery slope already.

Although clearly Apple has not yet closed down OS X - you would still be able to download and install apps from elsewhere I can't help but think this is just the stepping stone to eventual lock down of OSX.
The Flash and Java exclusion timings are not mere coincidences.
That would be a sad day indeed after Apple took so much from Open Source and used it to build the most closed down system you can imagine. It almost sounds like Apple is asking "Just how much can I get away with?". They will gauge the response, make sure they have enough developer backing to ride on and then one day close it all up. I am sure they will get enough people to both develop and buy apps and that's really going to be the driver to the lock down.

I have not seen any evidence that the Launchpad is limited ONLY to apps from the Mac App Store. What the Apple site says is that apps from the store are automatically added to Launchpad. That's not the same thing as saying "only" store apps are added to Launchpad. In fact what it says is "Your open windows fade away, replaced by an elegant, full-screen display of all the apps on your Mac." All the apps. (If there's a statement I'm not aware, please post a link...)

Including the apps in the update tool might be useful, but most apps on my Mac check for updates themselves when I start them. It's not like I have to remember to go out and check the Firefox or Adobe sites for patches myself.

The battle between the kdawson haters and the Apple haters starts NOW!

Dude, forget that! I'm surprised that, at the time I wrote this, the Debian hivemind hadn't stopped by yet to murder the writer of the summary for calling it Ubuntu's "apt"! Give it a few more minutes, then the REAL fun begins!

Longtime Apple developer Dave Winer was also concerned, tweeting during Apple's presentation 'Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?'

If Apple is restricting operating system features to whitelisted applications, then it is, by definition, no longer an open platform. There are degrees of openness, of course, but given Apple's approach to the iPhone, my guess is that the Mac will eventually become a similar prison.

The news also prompted developer Anil Dash to call for an open alternative to the Mac App Store."

Rather, pick an open alternative to Apple. It's truly remarkable that Steve Jobs is finally starting to make Microsoft look good. And this comes at a time when Windows is, actually, looking halfway decent and MacOS is starting to look a little dated. If Ballmer has half a brain he'll exploit this to the max.

I guess Apple is expecting the same mindset that made the iPod and iPhone so phenomenally successful to carry over into the personal computer world. Time will tell, but truthfully I don't think much of the bulk of Macintosh users' hold on reality, so chances are, Jobs is going to be right once again. Enough people will stand for this that it will make a metric fuckton of money. That depresses me, somehow.

The amazing thing to me, speaking as someone who was in the ground floor of the personal computer revolution, and still has an Apple ][ Standard with the Integer ROM sitting on a shelf somewhere, is that it is Apple Computer that is pulling this crap on its users. It's the kind of thing that one would more reasonably have expected from the likes of the old IBM, or even MIcrosoft. But no, it comes from the company that once stood for freedom in computing.

No thanks. You've fallen a looong way, Mr. Jobs. What little respect I once had for you just jumped out the window.

Okay, so the store itself is locked down, I get that. But I'm not going to get really concerned until Apple starts to make it difficult to install applications outside of said store. At the moment, there are plenty of ways to install applications without the store. I might not like their app store, but I still have a choice not to use it.

The problem is the Launchpad. I'm an OS X user, but I can readily admit that most Mac users are Yahoo Answers-grade stupid when it comes to computers. To them, there will be the app store, the launchpad, and that's all they'll need because nothing else is nearly as simple. Jobs doesn't need to lock it down. He knows that he can't but this is probably the closest he can come to it. It may as well be locked down for most Mac users. The more advanced ones will install apps from whatever source they want. The thing is, this just SEVERELY gimped developers who don't make apps that will fit Apple's ludicrous standards, and I think they know it.

Good work, Steve. Your endless desire for control has likely just cost the Mac a lot of developers. Oh, it may not be immediate, but it'll happen. Goddammit.

Apple showed non-app-store Applications within their Launchpad.
However, yes... Apple is saying that for them to distribute Updates on your behalf without you paying for your bandwidth or order processing, than you need to provide them with their 30% figure.
Yes, they have bad terms outlined in their Acceptance Agreements. Yes, it is certainly going to be anti-competitive. Yes, it is going to promote more "dumb" apps like we have on the iPhone. Yes, we acknowledge that many of the "useful" apps would be outright rejected from the App Store...
The take-away is that for Developers where the new model isn't a good fit, just keep doing precisely what you are doing today.

I think it's more like Apple asking, "Hey we've come up with all this new interface stuff that people have really loved, how can we take some of what we've learned and use it to make our other products more similar?"

The Mac is finally starting to make some inroads on Windows market share, Apple makes the vast majority of their revenue off of selling hardware, and they're selling record numbers of their computers, all with profit margins that any other computer manufacturer would kill for. Why would they be so eager to even risk stomping on all of that momentum in exchange for a 30% cut of a bunch of 99 cent apps?

It would destroy the platform that developers use to make apps for iOS, it would alienate all of the big software companies that make mac software, and it would turn the technical community entirely against them. I don't think they're that stupid.

My understanding that an Apple announced an additional distribution channel using the Mac App store. Apple was not replacing the existing methods of retail, online, etc. Also Apple is not introducing any DRM to prevent installation. He also doesn't understand existing distribution systems today.

Apple could have enabled its Launchpad and auto-update features for all applications, sold through the Apple Store or not. For example, an open system for updating applications has been in use for years on Ubuntu, a Linux based operating system. Ubuntu's "Apt" (Advanced Packaging Tool) lets users install, update and remove software of their choosing with a single command.

So the author expects that somehow that apps not submitted to Apple will appear magically appear for auto-update? In the case of Ubuntu, there is a system to do handle updates. However, any code installed outside of the system (i.e. tarball or gzip) does not get auto-updated within the system.

Oracle hasn't announced any plans for a Mac JVM. Neither has Apple. Java apps are specifically banned from Mac App Store on ground that it is "deprecated". Flash would not be a default install in current and future OSX releases which gives Apple a way to reject Flash / AIR based Apps.

Apple isn't in the business of selling computers, they are in the business of selling a "user experience." That necessarily demands that His Jobsness controls as much of the platform as possible. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Who said it's a surprise? Why does everyone on slashdot think you can only criticize things you're surprised at? I just don't get it.

Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features.

The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application

Where exactly does it say that no apps except those bought from the App Store will be available in the Launchpad? Doesn't say that on Apple's page, and the way it's written doesn't even imply it, unless you're out looking for something to post an anti-Apple screed.

the second is the ability to update apps to new versions with one click.

There is absolutely no evidence that LaunchPad is restricted to App Store apps only - in fact, the inference from Apple's literature is quite the opposite. However, no one can actually confirm one way or the other.

Drawing conclusions on this evidence is... questionable.

Also, it should surprise no one that autoupdating from an Apple-hosted repository would perhaps be a service that costs money to run (thus, if you want in [as a developer], you need to pay for it).

Yes, as near as I can tell this article made up the bit about Launchpad only working with App Store apps out of whole cloth.

I don't blame people for being worried that Apple wants to turn Mac OS into a walled garden. We've seen it with iOS (and, for the record, I think it's unconscionable). But it does appear that, at least for now, that's not the case. I'm not very worried about it myself, because I think people use Macs very differently than they use iOS devices, and Apple knows that. But it's not unreasonable to have that fear. I think it's a mistake for Apple not to make it very clear, from the start, that an iOS-style lockdown for the Mac is not part of their plans, now or ever.

Except this is all just BS playing into the minds of the rabid Apple haters. Launchpad isn't only for App Store apps; one-click update isn't disabled for apps not in the App Store, it's just that Apple isn't going to supply tools for apps not sold through the App Store to be updated through the App Store update mechanism. They're not suddenly going to disable Firefox's updater, or anyone else's.

If I wanted to make money, I'd just write a short book on how much Apple sucks and then get it reviewed here. So many of you guys are getting to be as indiscriminate as Fox News viewers.

So the author expects that somehow that apps not submitted to Apple will appear magically appear for auto-update? In the case of Ubuntu, there is a system to do handle updates. However, any code installed outside of the system (i.e. tarball or gzip) does not get auto-updated within the system.

In Ubuntu and Debian, you are not limited to using the central repository with apt. You can add any third-party repositories to the list. Applications from those repositories will be automatically upgraded on equal terms with the distribution's own applications.

I'm betting on mandatory code signing for applications outside the Mac App Store, making freeware impossible and shareware only available if the App Store censor allows it by 10.9. All for the customers' own good, you understand (viruses, uncertainty of downloading off the internet, and stuff).

At that point the web browser starts to become less important as newspapers can be accessed by (paid-for) apps.

but I can readily admit that most Mac users are Yahoo Answers-grade stupid when it comes to computers.

What, and Windows users aren't? I agree that most Mac users aren't exactly the brightest computer users, but get real, most Windows users don't even know other OS's exist, let alone what an OS is. Mindless flock of sheep, really.

Has anyone from Apple or Oracle said that Oracle's going to do a Mac JVM?

Half the Java team have walked, could they even do one by Lion's launch date if Larry told them to do it? And secondly, it's rather difficult to integrate it into Cocoa as well as Apple have done, if Apple haven't handed the source code to Oracle then they'd need to take Apple developers on.

If Larry is even aware of what's happened he's probably himself how many yachts he can get out of distributing a free JVM for Mac after taking costs into account, and the answer is probably less than one.

Good work, Steve. Your endless desire for control has likely just cost the Mac a lot of developers.

Huh? It's the distribution chains that should be worried, not the devs or the users.

This is the best thing since sliced bread for many of especially the smaller devs. Apple takes care of the bandwidth costs, Apple takes care of the review and feedback system, Apple takes care of the auto-updating mechanism, Apple takes care of getting your apps closer the users than ever since it's an integrated part of the forthcoming OS. The devs? Well, $99/year and 70% of the sales, and that's it. This is a killer feature for all developers who rely on their website on providing the applications, and are worried that their web host will collapse after getting Slashdotted.

No gimping here, far from it. No, rather the opposite. This will attract new developers.And the users benefit since the updating and exploration part will become a super smooth experience.

Sure, if you do special things with your apps, like installing things like system components outside the app folder, then you have to rely on the traditional means. However, if you have such special needs, your application is also of a special kind, and your users will *have* to get the functionality through your web site. There's no option. So I don't see the problem, really... Photoshop is among those apps who probably can't be shoe-horned into the Mac App Store, but that doesn't mean Adobe will suffer! Of course people will still want Photoshop if they use these kind of tools. And what about VMware? Well, for advanced virtualization software, you *have* to use other channels. And for the random tiny app that installs a driver to do [insert technical thing here], well, there'll be no competition on Mac App Store taking away your users - there's no competition since nothing there would be granted rights to be there anyway.

Imagine you've got a program called "Opera Browser" and you are Not distributed through the app store. That means you won't be able to use the LaunchPad and 1-Click Updates. Wouldn't that tend to make your program less attractive than, say, Apple Safari which DOES have those abilities?

They don't need to make it difficult to install applications outside of the Mac App Store. They just need to re-educate users so that most users will refuse to install applications not from the Mac App Store.

The chicken-little fear of OSX becoming "closed" ignores the reality: Macs have barely 10% marketshare, Cross-platform development is common and well understood these days, and if power users (who act as system evangelists) start abandoning OSX, Apple stands to lose LOTS of money.

The moment it becomes even difficult to do my daily job on a Mac is the day I go to Linux permanently... it's quite easy and usable today, but the Mac is more usable and affords me (with VMWare) the best OS for development for now.

Um, no. People will still get those Java and Flash apps from the same place they have always been getting them... drumroll please... the internet. This is different from iOS whereby the app store is the ONLY way to install applications. This is just ANOTHER WAY. And come on... use your noggin... if Windows created an app store that didn't allow Java or Flash, do you think Java and Flash apps would disappear from that platform as well? It's not like Java is installed by default on Windows machines either.

Except not everyone wants to make apps that fit Apple's baloney criteria for inclusion in the App Store. Since that means you won't sell as many (as a bunch of users don't know anything outside the app store), they might just give up and stick with Windows.

But Apple can't be blamed for that. You want your programs to use their repository features you submit it to their repository. Just like if you want you programs to be included in a Linux repository you submit it to the repository maintainer. I'm fairly certain the repo maintainers don't troll the Internet looking for apps to include, then beg the authors for.rpms or.debs. If your app isn't accepted by the maintainer, it doesn't get included (which I'm sure happens with Linux repos too. I can't imagine they accept any piece of trash "hello world" app just because it was submitted.)

Apple is providing a service. Follow there rules and you can use the service. Choose not to use the service, or chose not to follow their rules, and you have either provide your own service or use a different one. I'm personally quite convinced they aren't going to lock down other methods of installation. If I'm wrong, then I won't purchase the operating system "upgrade" that includes this "feature" and my next computer won't be a Mac.

It's called fink and has been around for years. MacPorts is another package management system with a sizable repository.
What many people with no OS X experience fail to realize is that an OS X app bundle is just one way to get and use software on a mac. You can compile and run just about any GNU software on a mac, just as you can in linux. Maybe Apple will change that, but I doubt it. Most users will do things the Apple Way anyway, but one of the really nice things about OS X is you can use it like just another *nix as well, and Apple does promote that as a feature in its marketing.

We have DarwinPorts and Fink, that's your APT. The problem with these and APT is they don't have integrated payment, or hosting, and they don't allow developers to sell their software with DRM. If you want to offer your open-source solution OS X has you covered. But if you want to sell your plain-old proprietary app with copy protection and complete outsourced fulfillment and billing nobody really offers this.

These aren't like good things, but they're clearly what independent for-profit developers want. And 30% off the top compared to eSellerate or Kagi is competitive for low volumes. I'm surprised they didn't do a sliding scale.

Jobs HAS said that Oracle will make the JVM for future versions of OS X
Nope he hasn't. If you actually read, what he said was that Oracle makes JVM for all the other platforms (which is untrue but we can ignore that for a moment). That statement is not the same as "Oracle will make the JVM for future versions of OS X " - there is a big difference.

This kind of panic has happened before. I don't understand why so many people freak out any time Apple gets serious about distribution.

Apple's decision to open its own retail stores nearly a decade ago was attacked as a move that would destroy Apple's retail presence and piss off consumers. One clever analyst told MacWorld [macworld.com]: "It's another case of Apple being Jobs driven and not consumer driven." Guys like him got it completely backwards. Customers didn't actually enjoy having to look all over the place to find Apple products. Apple customers benefited from the stores. Developers benefited. Apple benefited.

A few years later, Apple created the App Store. It was widely derided as being overly restrictive for developers. There were a lot of statements about how it would strangle the platform. We all know how that turned out.

As for Winer, I think he'd rather Apple stick with the Mac [scripting.com] as the future of the company. That ain't gonna happen. Consumers have voted with their wallets. They want an easier experience all the way 'round, from finding apps to purchasing and using them, and Apple is providing that. The company has become a global powerhouse over the last few years by giving people what they want; developers can either get on board with that and find ways to profit, or they can develop on other platforms.

There's a fair amount of snarkiness in the tech community about all those fools in the business world, about all the dinosaurs who can't keep up with the times, but when it comes right down to it, we're often just as attached to the status quo, and just as slow to react.

Can we seriously cool it with the 'OMG Lockdown!' claims? Yes, Apple introduced an app store for macs this week, but at the moment there are plenty of other ways to get applications, and use of said app store is certainly not required. When the lockdown is actually in place, then we can complain and move on from OS X to [insert your favorite Linux flavor here]. Let's stop rolling down this slippery slope already.

And thats, my friends, is how you boil frogs... (erm, make that sheep)

Except in most Linux distros it's possible to add repos to fetch packages from, which, if we take a look at the iTunes App Store, probably won't be the case here.

And again, it's not only about the lockdown of other ways of installing it. It's also about accessing it via Launchpad and updating it automatically. I'm glad you vote with your wallet though, that's what a lot of people miss.

How can you contrast any operating system against windows saying you get root access with the other guys? The problem with windows and privileges is that it will whore it's self to anyone and anything with an electron. No one has ever had a problem getting superuser privileges on anything made by Microsoft.

I'm betting on mandatory code signing for applications outside the Mac App Store, making freeware impossible and shareware only available if the App Store censor allows it by 10.9.

That seems highly unlikely. Rather, they'll likely require code signing for apps in the app store as well as more and more of the code Apple ships themselves. Eventually, Apple will probably start using ACLs to provide more and more vocal warnings to users who try to run an unsigned application for the first time. Eventually, OS X may not even run unsigned apps by default, requiring the user to resort to manually whitelisting unsigned apps.

And I must say, they should have done it years ago.

At that point the web browser starts to become less important as newspapers can be accessed by (paid-for) apps.

Seriously? You really think the whole paid app for newspapers thing is going to work and that newspapers will be making apps for every platform instead of just Web pages? It seems unlikely to me.

If so, they're going to need to fork a Mac OS X Scientist Edition and attend to all the confusion that would entail. I know a lot of good professors and post-docs who use Mac as a "friendly unix", and recommend it to their students for that reason. Apple has actively courted this market, and it'd be outright stupid to risk it now. Not that I'd be shocked, but I'd be fairly surprised and it'd be a really dumb move.

I don't particularly like what they're doing now, since it makes installing free software (like R) from a disk image a "mysterious" thing instead of a commonplace thing, which makes using it in introductory classes more of a burden. Nonetheless it's tolerable. I really hope they don't extrapolate as you're suggesting; as a linux user it's currently slightly easier for me to collaborate with Mac users than Windows users.

However, I watched the entire keynote and as far as I recall, Steve said "you can add your apps to the launchpad."

That being told, the Launchapd is just like the Homescreen in my iPhone, and once I got 3 screens worth of apps I found it to be faster to use Spotlight to find the app I want to run. Guess what? Spotlight is already the way I do the same things on my mac.

I don't think the Launchpad will be the ultimate way to launch apps in the future, at least it wont be for me. I already use the desktop for similar results anyways.

All that aside, yea, going back to the attractiveness, App Store distributed apps will indeed be preferred. It will be the first spot for many to look up apps before they reach out to the web. I don't think this will bury non-app store apps, though. At least not for popular apps. I see most free software ending up in the app store for easy access.

Perhaps big software like Photoshop and Office wont make it, mainly because they will refuse to agree with the "buy once, run on any machine you own" policy. At the same time, I look forward for people that start developing small Photoshop alternatives because now they have an easy way to spread their product, selling it for a very affordable amount, and being founded by night-micro transaction income, being able to grow into worthwhile rivals.

I'm a little confused how you can possibly say there is no evidence when the iPhone is so locked down. Apple has proven that it is not above lockdown and they tout loud and clear that it is the best way to operate and you are seriously saying their is no evidence? Given the number of people worried about and the press it's gotten you would think Apple would put out a clear mission statement stating that they don't intend to lock down the platform, except that is exactly what they want to do.

Apple from the beginning of iOS said that it was going to be locked down and they gave no ambiguity about it. They presented the Mac App Store as new distribution channel.

Even today CIFS support in OS X is atrocious due to bad default options designed specifically to hinder interoperation with Microsoft.

Maybe that has to do with MS never publishing the entire spec until recently and Apple (as well as Samba team) having to guess what the protocol entailed?

Apple has never liked to play with others and it's entirely unsurprising that they would seek to lock down their platform. The timing of it is unknown as this point but it's pretty inevitable given all the rhetoric about walled gardens coming straight from Apple.

Yes, how they bought CUPS and destroyed it. How they refused to release WebKit as open source. How they keep Grand Central Dispatch and Bonjour to themselves. Yes Apple doesn't play well with others like open source.

They won't do it right away as it would be suicide. Look at AppleTV or any of Apple's new product, open they are not. Of course Apple can shift directions but right now they are on a clear path to walled gardens everywhere which will be good for some and bad for others. Fortunately there are plenty of valid alternatives.

Since when has AppleTV been open? It has always been closed. So none of the new Apple products are open? All their recent laptop and desktop refreshes have been closed?

I have no idea how an AC was modded +4 Insightful for that tripe. I can sudo in any terminal to gain root access if my account is an administrator. To gain similar access on windows 7, you have to reboot into a special mode otherwise you cannot alter/replace certain system files. All settings on the machine are in accessible plist file. All graphics can be replaced with modded version. Doing similar changes in windows requires accessing a proprietary binary hive database (registry), hacking resources in dll files and then rebooting into the recovery mode to replace the dlls with your hacked version.

The core of OS X is open source. Where is the source for windows? Where can I download it?

Apple released the technology they used to build their pro apps as Core Animation and Core video so I have to ask you, where are the apis MSFT uses for their software for third party devs to use? Why don't they update and use the common controls library for their Office and VS.NET products instead of custom built dialogs?

For one, unlike in game consoles, Microsoft is not a core hardware provider in the PC space. They only sell peripherals and software. They go after the commodity OS market.

Apple is a hardware and software vendor. They don't want the commodity OS market on commodity hardware, and have fought hard not to allow OS X to be used on commodity hardware. They have a limited breadth, deep stack market with high margins. That's the way they like it. Setting up a central software market for the Mac lets them bring the type of control of experience they've leveraged on the iPhone, iPod, iPod Touch, and iPad to the Mac. It also allows them to expose their core software market to many smaller vendors in one place, and for Apple itself to have some level of quality control over third-party software.

For Microsoft, letting everyone develop and distribute lets them hold on to the widespread use they worked so hard (legally and illegally) to get. For Apple, having control over the quality of third-party apps and offering third-party vendors things like Apple DRM, Apple-sponsored marketing, Apple-paid distribution, and Apple endorsements in exchange for a payment of tribute lets them consolidate control over their most powerful differentiator: nearly identical user experience across applications.

Honestly, I think if Apple mishandles this it'll be disastrous for the Mac. If they execute the plan well, though, it could be a huge strength for them. It's a high-stakes, moderate risk play with huge payoff potential.

What's more, the centralized application repository is popular and familiar among Linux users. We're quite used to making the decision between a fully vendor-supported repository, a third-party repository, and stuff we install ourselves and must update ourselves. Since OS X is a high-end desktop Unix with its own custom user interface (with the option of X), using long-time Linux and BSD software distribution methods makes sense to me. Let's just hope they execute it well and fairly.

Did you know that there is no app store on OS X now? Are you suggesting that people just buy a mac and then use Mail/Safari/Text Edit for all their needs now? Well, there are probably some who do that, but they sure as hey won't buy an app from any store, app or otherwise.

Except that of those only Solaris, HP/UX and AIX are actually "real Unix". And OSX is a BSD.

-uso.

OS X has a XNU kernel which is a blend of the Mach kernel and some BSD code. It is not strictly a BSD. It also ships with System V branch UNIX code and some GNU userland tools as well as Apple developed tools. OS X is a commercial UNIX both in the trademark sense and that it contains some commercial UNIX code.

Only one problem with this complete nonsense about the platform becoming "locked down" with the creation of the Mac App Store. It's a complete load of crap. The "Mac" and Mac OS X is and will continue to be a general purpose computer system, where you will _always_ be able to install software from any site on the web or install from any boxed CD or DVD or USB stick. The Mac App Store is a brilliant piece of marketing strategy that the Mac users will absolutely adore from day one. When it is in place Apple will have finally succeeded in getting the general public to use something that the Unix/Linux world has been madly barking about for decades: a nearly system-wide package management system. Only Apple will have managed to create a package management system that commercial entities will actually "buy into", so to speak, which has been the major flaw in the package management systems in the Unix/Linux world for so very long. Once again, without even breaking a sweat, Apple is about to something we wish we'd been able to do for the last couple of decades.

Mac OS X has had a sort of package management system (which works very well, BTW) for system updates for... well pretty much forever. Since its inception, I believe. But now, with a Mac App Store, users will have a single source to browse for and download both free and commercial software, have it _automatically_ install itself in the proper location with a single click*, and then keep dozens upon dozens of large and small apps completely up to date with a system-wide single-click update mechanism. Users will know that software from the Mac App Store has been vetted as being safe, having a certain quality level and not being completely pointless. Currently, most Mac applications are pretty smart about telling you there is an update available, and many of them will do a single-click download and update without much fuss. But this normally only happens when you run the app. Unfortunately, when you're starting an app it's usually because you want to use it, so it's kind of a pain to be constantly having one individual app after another telling you there is an update available. With the Mac App Store the users will have a central place to look for and receive notices of application updates, and a single button that will download and apply all relevant updates.

The moment the Mac App Store was revealed I immediately saw that it would change the way the typical Mac user will manage software on their computer, and everyone else will once again be stuck trying to cobble something together and catch up. Microsoft will desperately attempt to have something similar in place in the next version of Windows. Of course they will fail horribly, as usual. What will happen is that the Mac platform will continue to accelerate and gain more and more users on into the foreseeable future, because Apple is completely boxing in all market demographics. Between the iPhone, the iPad and now a new mind-bogglingly simple to use Mac platform, the PC world is going to be in serious trouble. Mark my words. Remember, the paying market could not care less about the kinds of "openness" we're always worrying about here on/. They want stuff that's as easy to use as their TV, and Apple is the only one giving them what they want.

Trust me folks, this is going to be _big_. The few developers who complain that the Mac App Store is too tightly controlled and refuse to use it will unfortunately be completely drowned out by the thundering horde who will be rushing to use it and showering praise on it for the next decade. Those of us "in the know" will continue to download apps from the general internet and use our general purpose computers as general purpose computers. That simply won't change. If it does change somewhere down the line, there's always Linux. Ten years from now I'm sure Linux will be kicking some major ass and still be just as open as ever. And even if the Mac platform keeps growing phenomenally the way it h

I sometimes compile custom kernels when I need to, and kernel configuration has become a lot easier. In general I use the provided kernels, but occasionally there is a reason to make my own. I've used Free and Open BSD and under both have had to compile kernels in the past so I have no idea what you find so different.

Microsoft wants people to develop for their operating system. It's the precise reason why they offer Visual Studio Express editions for free. It's this precise difference in thinking that gave Microsoft the larger market share over Apple, and Microsoft knows it all too well.

Difference? ALL Apple development tools are free downloads. Not just a cut-down version; the complete development suite with everything in it; same as every other developer uses. You can develop and distribute/sell Mac apps with Apple's tools without giving Apple a cent, and that isn't changing.

I agree with your Borg comment, but MS never created the same value proposition as Apple. Windows is always more of the same.. I spend money, I get the same thing I had, just prettier. Apple on the other hand really gives you amazing stuff that just works. See this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlD6JS0mD7E [youtube.com]

I am willing to give Apple money for their new software, in fact I already ordered iLife 11 for $50 yesterday. I begrudge giving MS money because it's the same old thing release after release. If you look at MS's top 10 list to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP, their marketing department struggles to make the case. Apple and Mac are fundamentally changing the way we interact with technology and innovating with each and every release.

Just spend some time with iMovie and GarageBand and you will understand the shift. And don't bother looking for the mouse button because Apple got rid of that as well, we gesture now.

There is clear differentiation between Windows XP and Windows 7, both in terms of stability and the user interface. It's hardly just a cosmetic difference. I suspect you don't use any Windows systems on a day-to-day basis.

I don't have any particular use for iMovie or GarageBand, so iLife holds little interest for me. Thinking about it now I don't believe I've ever actually launched either application, due to lack of need or desire. I do use iPhoto, but it isn't worth $50 to me just to be able to easily post photos to Facebook. I use Microsoft Live Gallery for that feature since it doesn't cost anything extra.

This comment was typed on a Mac, which I use every day for work. After about a year of using a Mac platform, I find it to be roughly the same level of stability and and usability as a Windows 7 system. I've had very rare hard lockups on both systems, which actually annoys me more in Apple's case because having a tightly integrated hardware/software platform is supposed to solve problems like that. I also had a weird battery problem on my MBP that was solved with some bizarre key combination sequence. But I digress. I do like using multi-touch gestures but they don't seem to have had any impact on my actual productivity.

These things are just tools, and they either do what we want better than another tool, or they don't. I wouldn't presume to tell you which tool is better for you.